to men's "communication" with each other in the ordinary intercourse of life,-is confirmed, and, indeed, we conceive conclusively established, by the fact that beyond the sphere of ordinary intercourse swearing is not prohibited. There are two distinct occasions, or classes of occasions, on which it is evident from Scripture, and, we apprehend, also from the nature of the case, an oath may be taken. In the first place, we have the most conclusive evidence that an oath may be taken when it is imposed by competent authority. Our Lord himself, whose example affords infallible guidance, took an oath under such circumstances. The high priest administered the oath "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God"and the Saviour took it in the usual form-" Thou hast said." -(Matt. xxvi. 63, 64.) And, in the second place, we have conclusive evidence that an oath may be taken when, in cases involving important interests, it is imperatively demanded, for the maintenance of truth, by the circumstances in which we are placed by divine providence. The history of the apostle Paul, often placed in urgent circumstances, and always deeply earnest in dealing with the circumstances in which he was placed, furnishes several instances. One occurs in his vindication of his apostolical authority, in the Epistle to the Galatians" Behold, before God, I lie not.”—(Gal. i. 20.) His defence of his conduct in not visiting the Church in Corinth, as he "had been minded," and in accordance with the intimation which it would appear he had sent to it, furnishes luck's interpretation. But if "Swear not at all"-deliberately chosen, explicit, and emphatic as the language is-does not mean, Swear not ut all, but Swear not irreverently, all confidence in language must be abandoned, and interpreters themselves cannot expect to use it intelligibly. The reasoning by which it is attempted to establish such a meaning must, from the nature of the case, be inconclusive; but if the reader analyse it, he will find it to be more faulty than he could well anticipate. Interpreters of this class display great learning and research in adducing facts philological and historical, but their reasoning from the facts they adduce is often most wretched.

another instance-"I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.”—(2 Cor. i. 23, and also ver. 18.) Such use of swearing among men God distinctly sanctions by adopting it himself in his dealings with them (Isa. lxv. 23; Gen. xxii. 16, 17; Heb. vi. 13, 14); for, in confirming his own declarations by an oath, in wonderful condescension to human conceptions and associations, he fully and unequivocally recognises that an oath, in circumstances calling for it, is a legitimate, as it is the most solemn, mode of confirmation. The apostle distinctly intimates that the oath of God is an assumption, into the sphere of God's dealings with men, of a certain use which men make of oaths in their dealings with each other; and such an assumption of it is the Lawgiver's own most emphatic testimony to its entire accordance with the requirements of righteousness.—(Heb. vi. 16, 17.)

An oath consists in solemnly declaring that we remit to the judgment of God the statement to which it is attached. Now, it is our duty to maintain an habitual reference to the judgment of God; and, evidently, there is nothing wrong or improper in solemnly declaring that in a given case we speak under the influence of such a reference. Accordingly, we find such a declaration commanded in certain cases.-(Exod. xxii. 11.) What is to be condemned is the want of solemnity in this declaration, and it cannot be solemn if made upon an ordinary or a trivial occasion.

It is true that the necessity for the use of formal oaths arises from the prevalence of untruthfulness But among men. if untruthfulness were to cease, the result would be, not so much the discontinuance, as, in a sense, the universality of swearing. In all they said men should then speak as if on oath, virtually remitting every word they uttered to the judgment of God.

VER. 37. But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay." Your communication," your speech in your intercourse with each other.

Our Lord here directs and requires that, instead of using oaths, men confine themselves in their "communication" to simple statement, affirming what they have to affirm, and denying what they have to deny. The intention of the repetition of "Yea" and "Nay" may be to indicate the application of the rule to all the successive statements of our "communication," requiring that it consist throughout of simple affirmations and denials. It cannot well be the object of the repetition to intimate that our statements are to be emphatic and animated, for often, if they bore such a character, they should not be appropriate to the occasions on which they were made.

Neither the phraseology nor the connection will admit the interpretation, "Let it be the character of your communication that you shall affirm what is true, and deny what is not true" (Wolf); or, as it has been expressed, "Let the yea of fact be the yea of statement, and the nay of fact be the nay of statement" (Bengel). What the connection requires is not an injunction to speak the truth, but an injunction to employ only simple statements, abstaining from confirmatory oaths; and it is such an injunction that the phraseology conveys. This is also the import of the similar injunction appended to a prohibition of swearing in the Epistle of James: "Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay."-(James v. 12.) The obvious meaning of this language is, "Let your affirmation be a simple affirmation, and your denial a simple denial; use no oaths for confirmation."

For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.—This is an enforcement of the preceding injunction. In our communication all beyond simple affirmation and simple denial springs from evil, results from the operation of the radical and originating evil. Here, in illustrating and enforcing the prohibition of swearing, as, in the preceding context, in illustrating and enforcing the prohibition of murder and the prohibition of adultery, our Lord descends to the first devia

tion towards the specified goal of transgression, and requires that that deviation do not take place. The rule he prescribes is, "obsta principiis."

"Evil,” or the evil, evidently denotes here the source of actual sin, the antecedent "evil" from which our sinful activity emanates. Now, this antecedent evil must comprehend all that, from its morally evil nature and in point of fact, is directly operative or exerts a direct efficiency in producing the sinful activity of human conduct. It is distinctly presented in this light in our text. Guided by the character which, viewed in itself, it thus bears, and by the relation in which it thus stands to outward sinful activity, we recognise it as the combination of indwelling sin in man, and of the corresponding principle in Satan disposing and moving him to labour strenuously and incessantly to promote the power and the prevalence of sin.-(Rom. vii. 5, 8, 17–24; Eph. ii. 1, 2.) Taking this view of the meaning, we regard the word rendered "evil" as neuter. Regarded as masculine, and rendered the evil one, it would not exhibit in its whole extent "the evil" from which outward sinful activity springs.

VER. 38. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.-(See Part III., sect. i., par. 12, 13, and the Scripture passages there referred to.)-As regards the construction, the two accusatives denote, in Exod. xxi. 24, objects of "shalt give" in the preceding verse; but there is no action expressed of which they denote objects in Lev. xxiv. 20, or in Deut. xix. 21. Verbal action is, however, implied, and the proper case for expressing its object is therefore employed. At first the action intended would be distinctly expressed, as it is in Exod. xxi. 23, but in course of time, to secure the brevity always consulted in frequently-repeated sayings, the verb would be dropped, the expression of the object remaining unchanged. It is in this form the saying occurs in our text.

VER. 39.-But I say

unto you,

that ye resist not evil.-The

direction, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," given to magistrates with respect to the punishment of injuries, was transferred or extended by the scribes and Pharisees to the sphere of private life. By this transference or extension its spirit and design were entirely changed, and, instead of operating as a prohibition of unbrotherly conduct towards one's fellows by requiring the punishment of injuries, it authorised such conduct in the form of retaliation or the returning of evil for evil.

It is to the retaliation thus authorised that our Lord opposes himself in the passage upon which we are now entering. Guided by what is thus the scope and bearing of the passage, we at once understand "That ye resist not evil" as prohibiting the resisting of evil in a vindictive retaliating spirit. It is wholly as a manifestation of this spirit that the resisting is to be viewed. And it is to be observed that it is not retaliation in its consummated form merely that is prohibited, but the very first step on the path of retaliation-the resisting of evil the incipient efforts against it, which, if successful, would be followed by retaliation, properly so called. From the fact that it is against those incipient efforts that the prohibition is expressly directed, some have failed to perceive its reference to retaliation, and have consequently regarded it as a prohibition of resistance, as such. There are two elements that enter into the meaning of our passage and compose it; one supplied by the scope, and the other by the words. It was only the latter of these that the interpreters to whom we now advert recognised, and hence the acts expressed by the words were to them bare acts, and not embodiments of a certain spirit.

"The evil" we regard as identical with "the evil" in ver. 37. Here, however, it is not distinguished, as it is there, from the acts which it originates, but is viewed as presented and embodied in them.

Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, &c.-The ques